James Steven Beverly

I didn't say it was a BAD thing. I just question the notion that a hand drawing is useless for storyboards in this day and age of computers. There are levels of pre-viz and they don't always have to be completely accurate to be useful. Sometimes it's enough to have a feeling for the composition you want to achieve and then find it on the set with the actors and location, let yourself be inspired by the moment. I'm one of the biggest supporters of pre-planning, but there are many methods that all have their usefulness. I think computer pre-viz makes more sense when you have the option of building sets and designing them for certain lenses and compositions.

Oh I definately agree with you on that point. Anyone who says pencil scketcked storyboards are useless nowadays simply doesn't know what he's talking about. In my own case the opening sequence takes place in space where a small science probe is torn apart by a nebula. To try and use per existing elements would have been futile because the elements we were trying to create didn't exist except in my mind. I had to give my team of animators a place to start. I them needed hand drawn storyboards to guide them through the process of creating the individual elements and the feel and tone of the piece as the scene progressed while allowing them the freedom to explore their own creativity and add to these elements to make them better than they would have been without the colaberation. Drawn storyboards, models and clay sculptures were the only way to accomplish this, so we even went so far as to use a conceptual artist to help us visualize the elements of my script w/ concept art and clay sculpture. I also agree that Jim Jarmish one said in an interview, "you make a shot list the when you get to ther set you throw it away" (I'm slightly paraphasing) Tha same with storyboards. It's a guide not the 10 comandments. However I somewhat disagree with your assersion that it makes more sense when your building the sets, I think a set of complete set of storyboards is ALWAYS useful. It give you a sense of rhythm and flow, It help to cement the look, feel and mood of the piece and makes it more real, more tangible. It is also a way to plan editing. I was watching "The Directors" the other night and they had the guy who wrote and directed "Spanking the Monkey" on. He mentioned he not only does a shot list he also does an editing list (at least he did on his first 4 movies). I think storyboards do this all in one shot. When Peter Jackson lost funding for Lord of the Rings, he had 1 and 1/2 weeks to find funding or he was to walk away from the project. When he approched New Line, one of the major reasons he was greenlighted was because of his exceptionally thourgh pre-visuallization which included fully detailed storyboards, pileminary aninmation tests and conceptual art. The comment about not worrying about an over the shoulder converation sequence I also disagree with. I like to vary the angles a bit during these exchanges to help keep the audience from getting bored. also when looking at the storyboards it helps you gage the rhythm of the piece. If a tool in availible I say use it! It's like chicken soup and a cold, it can't hurt .

:rolleyes:

I'm trying to adjust to the post-Steenbeck world :blink: :D

 

-Sam

Why adjust, just go "Old School" as they say! :D

Great thanks, the diameter of the center hole though is the same then, only the shaft lengths are different, right?

David, I gotta tell you, I became inspired by Hitchcock in that he would storyboard ever single scene whenever he made a film and once asked someone, I forget who, if they'd like to see the film I believe it was the Birds before he had shot it , when asked how that was possible her showed the man the storyboards. When he shot he rarely to never deviated from this preplanned vision and his films always came in on time and under budget. Now with all due modesty I'm a decient artist with a pencil. I did the storyboards for my project "the Black Sky" with this new fould inspiration and there are 194 about 4 1/2 x 8 in size about the quality of what you saw in the making of the Matrix. When I was done it looked good and was well worth it but it took FOREVER. I then took a cue from Peter Jackson after I found out he used lipstick cameras on minature sets to plan shots for the Lord of th Rings and built a minature of my flightdeck set scaled to accomidate Barbie and other 12in action figures. I confiscated a digital security system My parents had from a store they used to own and started a moving storyboard w/ the 4 miniature cameras on VHS. This actually worked amazingly well but the miniture sets took time to build and my animators made fun of me for playing with Barbies (I used Barbies, Kens and GI joes because my Nieces and nefews had outgrown them and they came with prebuilt props and set peices even interior walls, all for free). I didn't care so much what the guys thought (actually one of them was so impressed he wanted to build minature lights using bright LCD and the bodies from ball point pens and use pipe cleaners and coathangers to fabricate minature light stands) but the only way to connect the scenes to the script was to slate them like a real film or read the script while shooting the miniatures, plus I have 7 sets one of which (the cargo bay) would have taken up my entire hallway. So though it was useful for experimenting with camera movement ,I still thought "Well may be I can refine this using Poser". But to be honest with you, Poser is a pain in the ass to use, so when I saw Frame Forge 3d I found it amazing. I like the idea of having lenses availible to try different pespectives and camera angles, the chance to try different color pallets and approximate lighting, props, sets and costumes and all in a very simple to use package that doesn't require massive amounts of render time. You should be able to completely pre-visualize you movie before having to pay for anyone's time. I don't know if you can import digital stills into this program but if you can you would be able to test your scouted locations right there just by taking a digital camera with you. and placing your virtual actors in front of the location backdrop. ( I did something like this by setting the action figures in front of flat screen monitor w/ a pic projected full screen just as a test. It actually worked pretty good.) I like digital storyboarding. I mean they didn't use sound for the first 30 years of filmmaking either but when it came out it made films better. I think digital storyboarding has the potential to save filmmakers a tremedious amount of money and i therefore a good thing. Just my opinion

I have my video post room already out fitted in my home but plan on turning a larger room in my house into an editing/darkroom editing suite and move everything into there. I an in the process of getting everything that I will need to do both film and video- a film bin, rewinders, splicer develping tank and what ever else I need in order to complete it. (suggestions would be welcome) I have most of the digital editing stuff I need. I'm using a SGI workstation w/ Premere software for digital but still want to but together a 10 to 20 machine render farm for animation. (i've got a couple of very talented animators who work with me) At some point I plan to get into HD as well (when I have more money). I have a 4000 sq ft workspace I use as my studio. It's not ideal, the ceilings are too low and the roof leaks but fortuately here in the desert it doesn't rain too often.besides The electircal is al industial and I can afford it although I am looking an a warehouse that would be perfect. It's about the same sq footage but it's cider block construction w/ 30 ft ceilings, great for lighting, and flat smooth concrete floors. The electical is 3 phase and will handle anyhing, in fact my family used to rent the building so I lnow it intimintly. Again when I can conjour up some cash I'm going to try and buy it. A friend of mine owns Kakuwa lighting and grip and keeps his lighting truck and most stuff over at my place so I'm lucky in that what I don't own in the way of lighting it is availible to me although I do want to get my own stuff and I have Mel expertise to rely on. I have been picking up a few things here and there. I got a dolly crane and old vinton that can bring the cameraman to over 10 ft. It's really cool although it's about the size of and kinda looks like a narrow dune buggy. My goal Is to creat a small production studio capible of producing feature films without having to rely on anone elses approval to greenilght a project. In the current studio I'm in I've been working on a sci/ project set abourd a starship, the film is called The Black Sky. Ive been working on it for about 6 years but in my defence when I started I had nothing but the space and actor's from a acting workshop I was teachng at the time. Anyway I ramble on. What is everyone else doing? If that's not to broad a question for this thread?

Will 35mm reels (Split and/ or regular reels) work on 16mm rewinders?

I tried to get the software but the download doesnt work.

Is there any other way, or another program, that wont

break my budget?

thanks

DG

Did you download it from thr German site? I Just did and it wors perfectly.

Film is the most colaberative artform there is. It really comes down to respect. Do you respect the people who work under you? I was watching a documentary about military combined strike forces a while back and there was a greneral in charge who oversaw the oparation aboard a airborne command post and I watched the way he talked to and treated his subordiates. All were treated with respect and utter politeness, please and thank you yet there was no mistaking who was in charge. His soldiers wanted to do what he said not because they had t but because they respected him. A DP with expirence has EARNED his strips and an inexpirenced director who dismisses what he says out of hand or treats him as an employee out of ego is a fool. He KNOWS what the frame is going to look like. Your responsibility is to define your vision of the overall picture but your job is to communicate what you want in whatever way it takes to make your people understand His job is to translate your vision into a practical reality and his responibility is whats in that frame at any given moment. As a director you have to constantly ask yourself Do I have a clear cut vision of what it is that I want overall and what it is that I want at this very moment and am I communicating it in a way that my people can understand? That goes for all the people that work with you not just the DP. I can not tell you how many times I've heard actor's talking about the directors they respect and making the comment " He knows exactly what he wants" they leave out without realising it because when it's done well it never occurs to them " and he know how to make me understand exactly that is"

Yes, it was "The Killers" now I stand corrected :) Thanks

The Killing from 1956 was Kubrick's 6th picture (Including documentary and shorts). Just thought you'd like to know.

How many brush strokes should a painter use on his painting? As Amudaus said to the King when told his music has to many notes, " which notes should I remove?" If camera movement draws attention to the camera and and not what's in the frame IT'S WRONG! and If you loose the pace of a scene because the camera should be following the action to keep the audences interest IT'S WRONG! There is a scene in Sam Fuller's Pick Up on South Street where Richard Whitmark's chariture beats the hell out of a woman and the camera stays in a master shot for most of it, It was one of the most disturbing and effective portrayals of violence on film I've ever seen and yet the long LONG tracking crane shot Orsen Wells used in opening of a Touch of Evil is a peice of cinematic history. So the answer is use whatever movment or stillness the scene requires to make the scene and the film it's most effective. Screw the disrtibutors! The distributors want to make money and what makes money is good work. Remove the stone it takes to create David but leave the stone that David needs to make people unable to take their eyes off of him.

I should have mentioned that the Konvas 1m I have, runs on a reostat motor from the factory. I found 6 volt 13amp batteries made by Helios that would work but I thought a 12 volt kicked down to 6 volts by a second reostat at the power plug and running more amps would last longer in the field and I already have the battery belt. I'm not sure if that makes a differance in your assesment of my prediciment, but I would imagine that even if I used a 6 volt battery setup, when the motor heats up and the load on the motor changes, the voltage and the motor's speed would still drop. I don't know if running a reostat to a reostat motor would increase this drop if your original power soarce has more voltage and more amps to begin with or it's the same, less or more when running a direct power source with less votage and amps to the single reostat on the motor. What's your opinion?

My camera uses 6 volt, 12 amp for power. I have a 12volt battery belt with a standard 4 pin balanced connector. My father told me I could easily convert my 12 vot output to 6 volt with a simple reostat. My question is where can I get a 4 pin male camera plug and how would I wire it to create an adaptor from 4 pin to 2 pin? Thanks

Generally speaking, who chooses the film stock for the primary and second unit cameras? I would assume it's the DP.

Go with a Pixelvision 2000 camera. It's got character, it puts all those boring, lame JVC/Panasonic/Sony cameras to shame, and it's got a built-in cassette recorder. And you can get one for a lot less. I'll bet none of those XL1 operators can match your footage. :P

I love it. Is that the new version of that playschool camera they used in that Peter Fonda vampire movie, the one that no matter what you shoot it looks like a horror film? I heard they were becoming increably rare because noone can fix them, no parts are availible. I wish I could remeber the name of that film. The little playschool camera was used very effectively for the Vampire's P.O.V. It was really cool

I have a possible job coming up as a second unit camera w/ my konvas 1m MOS camera. I've noticed most stock from Kodak have a filter correction from tungsten to daylight and most say a #85 of some sort. I wouldn't try to jury rig it but time is short and I've spent a wad of cash already this year so I have to make a few ducets before I can invest in more equipment. It may turn out something breaks loose and I can get the proper stuff before the shoot but I don't want to HOPE I'll have what I need when it comes time to head for the set. Bottom line is I don't have the cash or time to wait for a mattebox to arrive from mother Russia so work with what you have or can get, Right. What I have are Cokin 2 1/2in square set of filters w/ the mattebox for a still 35mm camera and adapters for screw in filtes that can slip into the slots. I would still have to buy a set of #85s, but they're cheap for still cameras. My camera is the turret type. The filters cover the lenses well. so my plan was to fabricate an adjustable support for the mattebox and use a french flag and/or black wrap OR fabricate sheetmetal bellows to compensate for the Cokin mattebox's shortness and lack of light control. Barring this, tape the screw in filters I have to the lens w/ a still lense hood (not what I want to do unless I have to).

Can you use filters designed for still cameras on a movie camera (both 35mm) also what are cookies with reguards to lenses? I'm familar with lighting cooies but not sur what the term means when reffering to lenses. One other question, what is the standardized meaning of the variuos colors of tape on mags?

I live in El Paso and go every year to the border film festival. Usually it's heavily loaded toward mexican filmmakers and actors. Some of the better know directors and actors can't make a living in the mexican film industry because it is contolled by the government and a handful of people. I spoke with these guys last year and their complaint was that there were so few films made. They were doing television just to survive. I would say DO FILMS IN AND ABOUT SOUTH AFRICA. What a rich land with stories that should be told! I know your heritage is Mexico but this gives you a unique perspective from which to veiw South Africa and her people. Get an affordable camera and make a movie!

I just finished writing my new movie and I have come across a question I would like for someone to anwser:

 

Obviosly, without music, movies would be horrible. So how can I get rights to music so I can submit them to festivals and such. For instance, one song I would liek to use is an original score from "The Ring". I would I go about getting permission?

Because of the industry's history, music rights are a mess. If you do some research you'll understand why. They're expensive to get. You can get rights for festivals only, but again they an't cheap. You have to negotiate for each one ad NOTHING is in public domain written after 1922 so the best thing to do unless you simple can't LIVE without a particular piece is to get a competent composer to write something simiar to what your wanting or use royalty free music which has the same flavor of what you were going to use. If this is a micro bugdet project as I suspect it is, use the money you have elsewhere. Just my opinion

I really like my JVC GY-DV5000. It's not mentioned in this thread at all, these boards don't have a thread for it and I find it's not mentioned much at all.

 

I've done several DTV features with it and just love the final product.

FINALLY a kindrid spirt!!! I am so sick of XL-1 (2 ), XL-1 (2), XL-1 (2), XL-1 (2)!!! There's nothing WRONG with Canons except that they have 1/3in ccds and smaller glass than a JVC. In my opion the JVC is FAR superior to the Canon, Sony and Panisonic. It is the best Mini DV camera ever made. It looks and feels like a much higher end camera and with 3- 1/2in chips and better glass I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would choose the lesser camera, advertising I suppose. The picture quality is 800 lines of resolution and the lowlux is the best out there in this catigory! Go with a GY-500, 5000 or 7000 you will not regret it.

In the UK a 16mm cutting room usually had a Steenbeck and a Pic Sync on an editing bench. Every BBC cutting room that I've seen had them, so this could explain why there are so many around on the used market.

I saw a Magnsync 16mm on ebay yesterday. What makes the Pic Sync better? If it's being used as a matter of course by the BBC it's got to be good. I was watching "Hollywood North" today on dss and noticed in one scene, they had something that looked like a Pic Sync, It's where the blonde is using hand winders to spool some film.

I am new to film and was wondering if anyone could give me a short list the most common of 35mm film stocks and what situations they would be used in and also is fast film used only with fast lenses? What is the difference between fast and regular or slow lenses? Sorry if these questions sound elementery but I'm a rookie at this. Thanks-The Captain

More power to you. Although you'll need a ton of money even to make a short film, the usual advice is that computer editing isn't cheaper if you're just having a few prints. There's nothing to beat getting your hands on the stuff, actually being able to see your images.

I haven't edited since film school, so don't quote me, but I reckon flatbeds are actually quite inconvenient for fine cutting and working with mag film. I'd want to use a pic-sync as well for that ( http://www.acmade.co.uk/35mm%20Compeditor%20JPEG ). I got mine (16mm) from ebay for £1; it complements my £75 Steenbeck but I don't know if they ever caught on in the US; perhaps the Moviola is your equivalent. It's used for synchronising rushes as well. You can't easily view single takes on a flatbed, they're more for viewing. And I'd say that edge numbering was essential. Good luck.

That thing is wild. I haven't seen one before. I did see a small moviola viewer for sale on ebay a couple of months ago but I'm not sur if it was the same thing. How does it pul the film through? what do you use for reels?

When investing in building a filter library, it is first important to determine what size will best meet your current and future needs...Will the filter size work with your mattebox? Cover your widest lens? Common sizes that you will find are 4x4, 4x5, 4x5.65, and 138mm. For 35mm, I would recommend 4x5.65 (which will typicaly cover you up to a 14mm lens depending on the mattebox). Another popular, but bulkier size is 6.6x6.6. I defintely recommend the following as a good start for any camera package.

 

Set of NDs= .3,.6,.9

Color Correction= 85, 80A

Circular Polarizer

One of the following=Optical Flat, UV, or Skylight (great to have one if don't require filtration, but need something to protect the lens).

 

Once you have the basics, other popular filters to look into would be Black pro Mist, Low Contrast, Grads, Enhancers, and Corals. Another favorite of mine is the Black Diffusioin FX series.

This is great, are there any other items (not necessarily filters) That you see as must or should haves

Charles Koppelman, in Behind the Seen, after saying that F.F. Coppola, in 1967, bought the first Steenbeck flatbed to be used on a feature film in the US (The Rain People), says this about the KEM (pp. 51-2):

 

"So in 1972, another challenge for Murch on The Conversation ... was the new editing machine he was using - this one a huge, gray, ultrmodern KEM Universal "8-plate" flatbed, similar to the one that Thelma Schoonmaker had used to edit Woodstock in 1970. Until The Conversation, all of Murch's picture editing experience had been on the traditional upright American Moviola. The sleek German KEM had two rotating-prism screens, was push-button operated and capable of playing three tracks of sound at the same time. But it required film workprint to be strung together in large 1000-foot (11 minute) rolls of consecutive shots, rather than spooled into cupcake-sized individual takes a minute or two long, as used on a Moviola. The two machines require working in different modes, which Murch likens to a sculptor using different materials: instead of building up the "sculpture" of the film from the small bits of "clay," as would have been the case with a Moviola, editing with a KEM involves chiseling away chunks of "marble" from large blocks of film, ultimately revealing the movie hidden inside.

 

"Although it is a mechanical device, the Moviola is in fact a non-linear system with more organizational similarities to random-access computerized editing than to the linear KEM system. Consequently Murch's change to the linear KEM from the non-linear Moviola actually required more of a wrenching conceptual shift than the shift he would eventually make from film-based editing to digital editing. After The Conversation, Murch would switch back and forth between KEM and Moviola over the following 20 years, depending on the director he was working for and the editorial syle of the film."

 

Koppelman goes on to say that Murch first used an Avid in 1994, on a Linda Rondstadt music video, and that The English Patient was the first feature film that he edited entirely on Avid.

 

Coppola, in a contribution to Ondaatje's "The Conversations" entitled "I'm NOT going to mix the picture upside down!", tells an amusing story about his and Murch's efforts to figure out the gear that he brought to the US from Germany in 1967.

Interesting comparision of the 2 machines. I met Francis. I used to be good friends with Laurence Fishburne and He took me to a looping session for Apocalypse Now.

I just recently got a 35 mm camera after years of doing strictly video. What are the must have filters for my pckage as well as any other must haves you would recomend to do second unit work. Thanks